How many dollars is a Human life worth, if a vote would choose a tax to pay it?

[myrkul]

Atlas, if I owned all the air on Earth, would it be unfair for me to sell it like a business, by calculating the supply and demand of it, letting billions of people die to drive the prices up? I see no difference between that and letting people die as described in this thread.

If billions of people died, demand would plummet, and thus, the price.

[TheGer]

This is a pointless poll.  If paying a tax would save a life we'd all be donating to feed the children in Africa or get them fresh water.

A Human Life is priceless, but Humans(on average) will not pay out of pocket to save one unless it is someone dear to them.  It's Human Nature.

[BenRayfield]

Atlas, I agree wealth is a positive-sum-game, and I'll update my analogy.

Some people own patents on medical technology and ways to mass-produce it. They could create enough to save a billion lives and still have half their money. This is how the world really works.

A new bacteria is found on eastern continents. This bacteria consumes and emits gasses in a way that make the air poisonous and everyone will die from it within a few years if they keep breathing it, on the eastern continents. The bacteria can not cross oceans since it dies half way across the ocean for some unknown reason that we're unable to figure out even though our top scientists investigate it. All vehicles moving from the eastern continents toward the America's are destroyed on sight. Nothing comes from the east to the west. The America's have clean air.

Would it be unfair for the patent owners to sell their medical supplies to the eastern continents using supply and demand to maximize their profits, instead of charging closer to what it costs to create medical supplies and transport them?

Would it be unfair for the American continents to sell their air to the eastern continents using supply and demand to maximize their profits, instead of charging closer to what it costs to create transportable air containers and transport the air?

It's the same question. The difference is "medical supplies" compared to "air". People die either way as a business strategy of driving prices up.

The 2 questions should have the same answer since they are the same question with the product changed.

A Human Life is priceless, but Humans(on average) will not pay out of pocket to save one unless it is someone dear to them.

Then by "priceless" you mean "will not pay", as in a price of 0. If you won't pay $5 to save a Human life, but you will pay $5 to eat at a restaurant, then I say you think a Human life is worth less than your 1 meal.

[Anonymous]

I don't know how you would hold such monopolies on resources without the same kind of force you wish to use against people to pay into your regime.

Then by "priceless" you mean "will not pay", as in a price of 0. If you won't pay $5 to save a Human life, but you will pay $5 to eat at a restaurant, then I say you think a Human life is worth less than your 1 meal.

...and not a single fuck was given that day.

[TheGer]

I can say with full certainty you do not understand what a Human Life is or represents, or how it's beauty cannot be defined in Dollars.  For you sir, Human Life appears to be worthless.


Quote
A Human Life is priceless, but Humans(on average) will not pay out of pocket to save one unless it is someone dear to them.

Then by "priceless" you mean "will not pay", as in a price of 0. If you won't pay $5 to save a Human life, but you will pay $5 to eat at a restaurant, then I say you think a Human life is worth less than your 1 meal.

[Anonymous]

This is a pointless poll.  If paying a tax would save a life we'd all be donating to feed the children in Africa or get them fresh water.

A Human Life is priceless, but Humans(on average) will not pay out of pocket to save one unless it is someone dear to them.  It's Human Nature.

In a uninhibited society, if there was a starving man on the street I would gamble good money on that he would be fed within a reasonable time frame. If not, I would certainly feed him.

[BenRayfield]

I don't know how you would hold such monopolies on resources without the same kind of force you wish to use against people to pay into your regime.

You sound scared to answer the question, objecting based on the mechanics of how it would be done instead of the question of it would be fair or not. You know what a theoretical question is, right? If what I said is true, then would it be fair?

[Anonymous]

You sound scared to answer the question, objecting based on the mechanics of how it would be done instead of the question of it would be fair or not. You know what a theoretical question is, right? If what I said is true, then would it be fair?

You're proving my point. It's not fair to collect resources and capital with violence.

[BenRayfield]

It wouldn't have to be collected with violence if we had a global median-vote, since the majority of people would agree on whatever number of dollars (if its $0 or any other number) at most should be spent to save each of the cheapest lives. Governments use violence because they act against what the majority of people want.

If it could be done without violence, redirecting existing taxes instead of creating new tax, then:
* Is it fair to charge for air based on supply and demand and let billions of people die to drive prices up?
* Is it fair to charge for patented medical supplies based on supply and demand and let billions of people die to drive prices up?

If you answer any way other than YES and YES, or NO and NO, then you would be a hypocrite.

[TheGer]

In a truley uninhibited society this man would beg, borrow, steal or kill to feed himself.  This is how instinctual nature will take control without inhibitions.  There's no right or wrong of it, it's just how we are wired.  At our primal nature, we will kill to Eat, Drink, and Fuck(survive).

This is a pointless poll.  If paying a tax would save a life we'd all be donating to feed the children in Africa or get them fresh water.

A Human Life is priceless, but Humans(on average) will not pay out of pocket to save one unless it is someone dear to them.  It's Human Nature.

In a uninhibited society, if there was a starving man on the street I would gamble good money on that he would be fed within a reasonable time frame. If not, I would certainly feed him.

[Anonymous]

It wouldn't have to be collected with violence if we had a global median-vote, since the majority of people would agree on whatever number of dollars (if its $0 or any other number) at most should be spent to save each of the cheapest lives. Governments use violence because they act against what the majority of people want.

If it could be done without violence, redirecting existing taxes instead of creating new tax, then:
* Is it fair to charge for air based on supply and demand and let billions of people die to drive prices up?
* Is it fair to charge for patented medical supplies based on supply and demand and let billions of people die to drive prices up?

If you answer any way other than YES and YES, or NO and NO, then you would be a hypocrite.

There would be a minority and to collect from them will require the threat of blood.

It's a bad set of questions. Patents require coercion against people's property and air cannot be profitably sold that way without totalitarian force. It isn't a feasible business model.

Big Pharma can't sell weed for a reason. Anybody can grow it for free.

[BenRayfield]

I gave a theoretical event which could cause selling air to be a profitable business model. I shouldn't have to explain details of how to build something to ask a theoretical question about would its effects be fair or not. You're attacking the means of understanding the questions instead of answering the questions, which means you are afraid to answer the questions.

You think its fair to sell air and let people die to drive the prices up, if it could be done. That's good to know.

[myrkul]

The 2 questions should have the same answer since they are the same question with the product changed.

They do indeed: Supply and Demand.

If the people die, the demand will drop, lowering the price.
The manufacturers know this, so they'll set the price such that they can reach the most amount of people

[BenRayfield]

myrkul, that's not how economics works. Its true that the price adjusts so that more people can afford things, but the price also adjusts so poor people can't afford it, since it drives up the price for the people who have more money, and more total profit is made.

[TheGer]

You should change your even to read Water since this is going on worldwide right now.  Fresh water resources are being scoops up by the elites worldwide to be used as a commodity down the road when fresh water can be used as a weapon and a valued tradable commodity.  Todays it's Gold and Silver.  Tomorrow it will be Water and Food.

"Also, I gave a theoretical event which could cause selling air to be a profitable business model"

[BenRayfield]

Most people don't think logically about these things, so I said air instead of water. People have more reaction to charging for air than charging for water. I was looking for something people would say shouldn't be sold to maximize profits, and to compare it to something they normally say should be sold that way. If I had said water, they would ignore.

[myrkul]

myrkul, that's not how economics works. Its true that the price adjusts so that more people can afford things, but the price also adjusts so poor people can't afford it, since it drives up the price for the people who have more money, and more total profit is made.

[TheGer]

People get the exact amount of tyranny they will put up with and no less.  People have themselves to blame if it ever gets to having to pay for air.  Funny thing is that Society is trending towards this exact type of situation and people have been dumbed down and drugged up for so long they are to docile and lazy to care.

[BenRayfield]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Keynesian economics ( /ˈkeɪnziən/ kayn-zee-ən; also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century English economist John Maynard Keynes.
Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936; the interpretations of Keynes are contentious, and several schools of thought claim his legacy.
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former President of the United States George W. Bush, President Barack Obama, and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics through government stimulus programs to attempt to assist the economic state of their countries.

A democratic median-vote is not keynesian because keynesian is government making the choices instead of what the majority of people agree on.

People get the exact amount of tyranny they will put up with and no less.  People have themselves to blame if it ever gets to having to pay for air.  Funny thing is that Society is trending towards this exact type of situation and people have been dumbed down and drugged up for so long they are to docile and lazy to care.

That's no reason to avoid reducing tyranny.

[TheGer]

Tell that to your neighbors, and the rest of your family please.  Maybe it will help us all.